'INS Vikramaditya will be a game-changer'

[janon]

The reason IN has operated carriers so far are not really operational once. PN is no match for IN even without carriers, be it numerical, or wrt to quality, which is why PN will play it defensive anyway, except of their subs possibly. The close proximity of both countries makes naval attack not really important in a war, since our shore based assets are capable of taking out their naval and coastal targets too.
The reall threat comes from PLAN and primarily from their sub fleet, which is why the money we wasted on this carrier and it's aircraft would be better spend on SSKs and MPAs.

The IN's opertion of a carrier for the past 50 years has always been for operational reasons. You are ignoring how things work out during war, when you simply look at numbers. Naval warfare is not simply about destroying each other's ships, but also about protecting our sea lanes. Also, the days of naval armadas facing each other and shelling each other to attrition is over - that is not how future naval battles will look like. It won't be like the tank battles of WW2, where N1 ships face N2 ships face to face, and N1 wins if N1>N2.

It is all about selecting targets and attacking them sneakily. Remember, ships travel at about the same speed as a car on an Indian road, if not slower. Their battle groups won't oblige us by floating upto ours for a grand battle. Here is a likely scenario:

Suppose a convoy of Indian ships are bringing in material required for our war effort (fuel, ammo etc). Or it is simply a convoy of Indian merchent ships, vital to our trade. And we realize that a pakistani naval flotilla is heading towards them to attack them, and the they are only two hours away. Our naval ships are at least 8 hours away. How do we protect our ships?

Supersonic jets from the vik will take off, decimate the pak fleet and return before they can engage our ships, even though our CBG is 8 hours away. Our convoy reaches home safely.

One squadron of 4.5 gen fighters in the middle of the arabian sea gives us a much larger radius of invincibility than ships alone can. Ships travel at 35 mile an hour. The power of a navy is in reach - with an a/c, the reach of the navy is far greater than without. How far we can attack or protect, how quickly we can attack or respond etc.

About land strikes - yes, the IAF will be in a better position to do that. But in the last war we fought, the navy struck many targets on land in b'desh, even though the targets were much closer to our mainland than west pakistan is. Surely that was not because the navy wanted some limelight?

I havent even begun to scratch the surface on how an a/c benefits the navy. Next consider surveillance and target aquisition. How much surface area of the ocean can a few migs flying high scan, and find targets to attack, as opposed to a surface platform?

 

[nomi007]

not a game changer 

 

[janon]

not a game changer 

True, the words of a rear admiral don't hold as much weight as those of nomi007.

 

[duhastmish]

It's a good start. A aircraft carrier is like a small navy of its own with its supplement destroyer frigates and inboard system it can manipulate the defence of whole country

 

[sancho]

The IN's opertion of a carrier for the past 50 years has always been for operational reasons.

Which doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to do the things they had done without a carrier. Sea control (for the wide area of our coastlines) is not limited to a carrier, but requires a number of surface vessels and subs, while attacking our neighbors if necessary was always possible for IAF, today even more. The capability IAF has today to extend their reach, makes carriers for attacks even less needed.

Suppose a convoy of Indian ships are bringing in material required for our war effort (fuel, ammo etc). Or it is simply a convoy of Indian merchent ships, vital to our trade. And we realize that a pakistani naval flotilla is heading towards them to attack them, and the they are only two hours away. Our naval ships are at least 8 hours away. How do we protect our ships?

With our shore based maritme attack fighters and surveillance aircrafts of course! Again, the close proximity which we have makes it possible, that Mig 29UPGs (with Kh35), Jaguar IMs (with Harpoons) and even MKIs (soon with Brahmos), next to MPAs, credible AWACS and tanker aircrafts are even closer to Pakistan than a carrier might be.
Besides that any important convoy's would be protected by INs surface fleet anyway, which itself should more than capable to hold it's own against PN.

Surely that was not because the navy wanted some limelight?

Or simply because they could do it back than with less risk, but do you think IN would risk Mig 29Ks against Pakistan, with far more credible defence capabilities, P3s, F16s and even JF 17s in much higher numbers than this carrier could provide?
Today IN would use subs and Frigats with long range cruise missiles as first line of attacks and not make their carrier or the fighters vulnerable, while being supported by IAFs shore based assets (I still say shore based maritime attack fighters should be under IN, to have better joint operability with INs surface fleet!). A carrier however and it's airwing is meant to project power to greater distances, where the shore based assets can't reach or can't be operated as effectively, not to be limited to the Arabian Sea or the Bay of Bengal only. So for costal defence and to keep our neighbors in check, IAF and INs surface / sub fleet is more than enough, while the new aim is to project power to the Indian Ocean area, or even further, that's where a blue water IN with carriers and CBGs come in and where it will face far more problems with this airwing and without IAF support.

 

[SQ8]

Ah there again, the PNS Moron commanded by @Leviza surfaces yet again in this thread. Must be PN's newest Submarine? PN's Game Changer; perhaps?

Who can explain to perpetually intelligence -challenged guys that one (or even two) missiles cannot sink a Carrier. @Oscar spent quite a bit of energy on another thread, trying to explain why.

But PNS Moron has to sail around still..........

More importantly.. the missiles that might perhaps take down a carrier are way bigger than what Pakistan has. Think along the lines of the Kh-32.. something with a 1000kg warhead ..and then many of those.

The best that Pakistan can do is disable flight ops for a while.. or perhaps for longer. But that too demands not one or two missiles but 6-8 of them of which 4 get through and cause enough fires,damage and consternation/confusion to halt flight ops.

 

[janon]

Which doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to do the things they had done without a carrier. Sure, but if one carrier and its air wing can do as much work as twenty ships in different positions, guess which is more cost effective and efficient? Guess which strategy requires fewer sailors and everything else? Sea control (for the wide area of our coastlines) is not limited to a carrier, but requires a number of surface vessels and subs, Of course, and we do have those other surface vessels and subs. while attacking our neighbors if necessary was always possible for IAF, today even more. The capability IAF has today to extend their reach, makes carriers for attacks even less needed.



With our shore based maritme attack fighters and surveillance aircrafts of course! Again, the close proximity which we have makes it possible, that Mig 29UPGs (with Kh35), Jaguar IMs (with Harpoons) and even MKIs (soon with Brahmos), next to MPAs, credible AWACS and tanker aircrafts are even closer to Pakistan than a carrier might be.They can't be all dedicated to changing naval scenarios. We cannot tie up a squadron of AF assets and a tanker for one part of the sea, another for another part and so on. What if our convoy is about to be attacked en route from the persian gulf?
Besides that any important convoy's would be protected by INs surface fleet anyway, which itself should more than capable to hold it's own against PN.We cant guarantee every Indian ship will be escorted. Not even in peacetime.



Or simply because they could do it back than with less risk, but do you think IN would risk Mig 29Ks against Pakistan, with far more credible defence capabilities, P3s, F16s and even JF 17s in much higher numbers than this carrier could provide? You think they will always have those assets after a war starts? For one thing they would lose many of their assets in the initial stages of war, and for another, we will attack where we find an opportunity. We will see which part of their land is unprotected at a particular instant, and attack there. Again, it won't be a face off between our naval jets and their AF ones, if we play it right. Suppose our AF destroys their air defence in one particular sector, and suppose the navy's fighters are available at striking range, but out AF ones are not (because of attrition). There are infinite possibilities.

Today IN would use subs and Frigats with long range cruise missiles as first line of attacks and not make their carrier or the fighters vulnerable, while being supported by IAFs shore based assets (I still say shore based maritime attack fighters should be under IN, to have better joint operability with INs surface fleet!). A carrier however and it's airwing is meant to project power to greater distances, where the shore based assets can't reach or can't be operated as effectively, Think persian gulf. Don't assume that AF jets and refuellers will always be available - they need to protect our cities as well. not to be limited to the Arabian Sea or the Bay of Bengal only. So for costal defence and to keep our neighbors in check, IAF and INs surface / sub fleet is more than enough, while the new aim is to project power to the Indian Ocean area, or even further, that's where a blue water IN with carriers and CBGs come in and where it will face far more problems with this airwing and without IAF support.

Responses in red. And to add, it is not about "surface/sub fleet" being more than enough. It is about doing certain missions effectively. Protecting a certain area of ocean at all times is a lot easier with one CBG, than with 20 ships positioned properly and so on. It gives the navy a lot more options, and a lot more reach, and a lot more flexibility to execute missions.

There is a reason why any navy as big as ours operates aircraft carriers (china of course furiously trying). It is not simply auot power projection - if so, brazil and taiwan and spain wouldnt operate any. The only powerful navies that dont operate aircraft carriers are the ones protected by the US's carriers (south korea). Unless you believe that it is a conspiracy by all navies of the world to operate aircraft carriers for prestige.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

More importantly.. the missiles that might perhaps take down a carrier are way bigger than what Pakistan has. Think along the lines of the Kh-32.. something with a 1000kg warhead ..and then many of those.

The best that Pakistan can do is disable flight ops for a while.. or perhaps for longer. But that too demands not one or two missiles but 6-8 of them of which 4 get through and cause enough fires,damage and consternation/confusion to halt flight ops.

Thanks again @Oscar for spending your time and energy to illuminate some folks on this subject. But ignorance or jingoism is all-pervading darkness nonetheless.

On a slightly side-note; I still do not cease to be amazed at the punishment that the USS Yorktown stood upto in WW 2. Thereis a fascinating movie about her made by Edward Steichen relating to that topic. Ed Steichen was a famous still photographer who worked to document the USN's war at sea in the Pacific Theater who turned out a fascinating body of work as a Photographer, both in uniform and in civvy street.

The key to the Yorktown's survival was firstly a good design of W/T compartments and a terrific Damage Control Orgn. and SOPs that the USN had devised.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Does Indian nuclear policy say that any attack on Indian CBG will yield a nuclear response or was it USA's nuclear policy can anybody throw some light on this?

 

[janon]

Does Indian nuclear policy say that any attack on Indian CBG will yield a nuclear response or was it USA's nuclear policy can anybody throw some light on this?

Any nuclear attack on our CBG will result in a nuclear response. We have a NFU policy.

 

[SQ8]

Thanks again @Oscar for spending your time and energy to illuminate some folks on this subject. But ignorance or jingoism is all-pervading darkness nonetheless.

On a slightly side-note; I still do not cease to be amazed at the punishment that the USS Yorktown stood upto in WW 2. Thereis a fascinating movie about her made by Edward Steichen relating to that topic. Ed Steichen was a famous still photographer who worked to document the USN's war at sea in the Pacific Theater who turned out a fascinating body of work as a Photographer, both in uniform and in civvy street.

The key to the Yorktown's survival was firstly a good design of W/T compartments and a terrific Damage Control Orgn. and SOPs that the USN had devised.

And years have gone since Yorktown. I guess people need to know physics and "Eureka" a bit more before they decide that punching a hole is enough to take anything that floats down. I still dont understand the obsession there is with sinking a carrier? Perhaps the idea that it can float but still be made irrelevant during a large section of the conflict is not acceptable.. too captian Ahab's and their whale here. Perhaps people equate the sinking of smaller ships such as PNS Khaibar whose total displacement was some 3480 tons at max load.. compared to the Vikramaditya.. which is around 45k tons.

Perhaps a soothing statement would be that weapons such as the CM-400 do have the ability to severely damage and possibly sink something along the lines of a Dehli or Rajput class.

That being said.. I do believe it is possible to sink a carrier such as the Vikramaditya.. but for that the classical sub weapon is the best bet.. 3 to 4 torps(placed evenly) might do the trick.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Any nuclear attack on our CBG will result in a nuclear response. We have a NFU policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong then is it USN's policy that even a conventional attack on their CBG will yield a nuclear response cause I can recall that I have read it somewhere

 

[Capt.Popeye]

And years have gone since Yorktown. I guess people need to know physics and "Eureka" a bit more before they decide that punching a hole is enough to take anything that floats down. I still dont understand the obsession there is with sinking a carrier? Perhaps the idea that it can float but still be made irrelevant during a large section of the conflict is not acceptable.. too captian Ahab's and their whale here. Perhaps people equate the sinking of smaller ships such as PNS Khaibar whose total displacement was some 3480 tons at max load.. compared to the Vikramaditya.. which is around 45k tons.

Perhaps a soothing statement would be that weapons such as the CM-400 do have the ability to severely damage and possibly sink something along the lines of a Dehli or Rajput class.

That being said.. I do believe it is possible to sink a carrier such as the Vikramaditya.. but for that the classical sub weapon is the best bet.. 3 to 4 torps(placed evenly) might do the trick.

Ah well; it has something (if not wholly)to do with the perception of a Missile as some kind of "Phallic Symbol" !
While the Carrier represents a kind of "huge ego-driven Virasat" in common views. So that Jungian (or is it Freudian ?) connection that is sought to be made between the two !

Sadly, the "humble" Torpedo has gone down in the "Public Pecking Order".
N.B. because it dates to pre-history?
But its real efficacy has not.

 

[janon]

Correct me if I'm wrong then is it USN's policy that even a conventional attack on their CBG will yield a nuclear response cause I can recall that I have read it somewhere

I don't think so. US has some broad guidelines on wheether to use nukes or not, and it is not contingent on a single event like the attacking of a carrier. These were the guidelines until recently:

• An enemy using or threatening to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.

• To prevent an imminent biological attack.

• To attack enemy WMD or its deep hardened bunkers containing WMD that could be used to target US or its allies.

• To stop potentially overwhelming conventional enemy forces.

• To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms.

• To make sure US and international operations are successful.

• To show US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy from using WMDs.

• To react to enemy-supplied WMD use by proxies against US and international forces or civilians.

In 2010 the Obama administration revised those guidelines to make it stricter (ie, make it less likely that the US would use a nuke), but we don't know what the new posture is.

 

[SQ8]

Ah well; it has something (if not wholly)to do with the perception of a Missile as some kind of "Phallic Symbol" !
While the Carrier represents a kind of "huge ego-driven Virasat" in common views. So that Jungian (or is it Freudian ?) connection that is sought to be made between the two !

Sadly, the "humble" Torpedo has gone down in the "Public Pecking Order".
N.B. because it dates to pre-history?
But its real efficacy has not.

You know, I am not sure if such a weapon exists; but I always though the most effective anti-ship weapons would be something like a long range ASROC. Something that is able to put a type 53 or 65 torpedo within 600 yards of a ship with ease. That torpedo will home easily.. and the ship will be too confused as to what the heck just happened. With modern torpedo's running silent...the time to react, deploy soft-kill or hard-kill measure will not be enough. Seems like a sure shot weapon to me.
The only problem is, you need something massive to deliver something that weights 2300kg.